If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

RIAA and MPAA Litigation

Allright, ladle and jelly-spoons, it seems like it's time to revert.

Peer-to-pper file trading is LAZY. Yeah, that's right, LAZY. If you really want files online, you should have to at leasy TRY to find them, not just tpye in a search and get any god damn thing you want. I personally plan to stop using these services entirely, once I can convince enough people to do things the way it used to be done;

FTP, friends. It is not at all difficult for a moderately-intelligent ocmputer user to set up an FTP, to which they can restrict access as they see fit. That means no BSA hounds or RIAA lawyers searching your computer to see if you've got "pirated" material (because when you "pirate" something, you're holind your cutlass to the throat of the helpless maidens that are these billion-dollar corporations. YOU BIG BULLY!)

So set up an FTP. And don't tell everybody about it. and you won't get sued, and you'll still get to trade plenty of music. It's the future kids, and it looks just like the past.

If you run Linux, you don't have an excuse not to be running an FTP.
Unix, too.
Windows users, Serv-U is easy to pirate.. i mean.. use.
Mac users have it simple, too, I believe, (i wouldn't know, not being one)

Condoning Piracy?

Just so we're clear here, I don't condone piracy. The same way I don't condone illegal drug use.

I dont think there's any such thing as piracy.

Explain to me the difference between hearing a song once, for free, on the radio, and hearing a song as many times as you want to, when you want to. Is the convenience what makes it illegal? Or is it that the recording industry doesn't get to decide for you what oyu're listening to, which is a threat to their monopoly over the music you hear every day. I for one am really sick of hearing the same crap on the radio all the time, and if the only alternative happens to be called illegal right now, then put me right next to Henry David throeau for Civil Disobedience.

(PS - first five people to list one good reason each why music shouldn't be free for people with internet access get a cookie.)

"Explain to me the difference between hearing a song once, for free, on the radio, and hearing a song as many times as you want to, when you want to. Is the convenience what makes it illegal? Or is it that the recording industry doesn't get to decide for you what oyu're listening to, which is a threat to their monopoly over the music you hear every day. I for one am really sick of hearing the same crap on the radio all the time, and if the only alternative happens to be called illegal right now, then put me right next to Henry David throeau for Civil Disobedience."

The difference is hearing it when you want without advertisements and royalties being paid to the artists, no matter how big of a monopoly they are represented by. It's not the convienience that makes it illegal - its the unpaid convienience. And you can find plenty of independant artists that your aren't "forced" to listen to online - and sample their music via streaming online.

And saying run an FTP to share copyrighted material to dodge the RIAA litigation doesnt condone piracy? right....

My point, and the final point that I wish to amke in this somewhat disheartening discussion, is that the RIAA has absolutely no business whatsoever trying to control what i do online. My file swapping habits are not thier concern. There are millions of dollars lost to overseas bootlegging every year, and it's proven that record slaes have increased steadily every year since Napster came out. So i'm sure as **** not gonna take the blame for the RIAA's superiority complex. And the FTP that i'm running probably has, at most, 5 mp3s that are "coprighted" because REAL recording artistrs dont bother with such igrnorant obfuscations of the American way, and instead focus on the art in works.

Iwas simply returning the favor for the negative points. You ought to be getting used to that by now, seeing as how you can't even form a valid argument.

FTP, friends. It is not at all difficult for a moderately-intelligent ocmputer user to set up an FTP, to which they can restrict access as they see fit. That means no BSA hounds or RIAA lawyers searching your computer to see if you've got "pirated" material (because when you "pirate" something, you're holind your cutlass to the throat of the helpless maidens that are these billion-dollar corporations. YOU BIG BULLY!)

If these people wanted to get inside of your computer theres nothing thats gonna stop them.

If your against do not condone piracy, then isn't setting a FTP server up and sharing files with a select few, piracy?

My file swapping habits are not thier concern. There are millions of dollars lost to overseas bootlegging every year, and it's proven that record slaes have increased steadily every year since Napster came out.

Actually, most people's are, because they are sharing material that is IP of the recording industry. This is the law. I'll say it again - I don't agree with how they are combating it but copyright infringment is a civil offense and they are going after those who do it "properly".

The RIAA's revenue is definately down and I can find plenty of links to show you that. Please show me your info.

Lets face it: those numbers are from a time before the other out croppings of P2P as well as before even more people joined in the fray of filesharing. Napster had a peak number of active users ~1.57 million, where as Kazaa has double that, and even before the software had hit over 200million downloads.

Makes you wonder why CD sales were still up at that point? Maybe the Boybands of the time (lol, but true...) + not the widespread usage of P2P like we are seeing now.